Excuse me? Wasn’t Obama the same guy who lectured McCain and Bush for not doing enough to get OBL in Pakistan, in addition to promising cross-border attacks into the country if necessary? Why yes, yes he was.
Obama’s alleged sin, according to the criticism he received after his Wednesday speech on terrorism, was being as explicit as he was that he was prepared to put U.S. forces inside even without Musharraf’s explicit consent. That could be through the use of cruise missiles, a lethal drone like the Predator or, as his aides made clear, U.S. forces ordered across the border.
And now the administration is considering halting the Predator strikes due to fears that they could be weakening the already-shaky government in Islamabad.
Sources close to the administration said the policy, which is the only direct means the US has of targeting terrorist leaders, was being “re-evaluated” because of its adverse affect on public opinion and its value to the Taliban as a propaganda tool.
“I have no doubt there is a change of mood,” said a Washington source. “The administration recognises that the political challenges are so immense for Pakistan’s government that the US has to re-evaluate what it has regarded as an otherwise successful programme.”…
“I realise that they do damage to the al-Qaeda leadership, but… the drone strikes are highly unpopular. They are deeply aggravating to the population and they’ve given rise to a feeling of anger that coalesces the population around the extremists and leads to spikes of extremism.
I understand the reasoning behind the administration’s reported considerations; really, I do. But this would be the same president who, when campaigning, talked openly about putting troops in Pakistan regardless of what Islamabad wants and went after Bush and McCain for not being tough enough. Perhaps Senator Obama should’ve realized that the two Republicans may’ve been hesitant about moving against Pakistan because, low and behold, they were concerned about destabilizing the already-unstable Musharaff.
As Ace says:
But Obama — Mr. Diplomat, and Mr. Tough-Ass, too — knew better, and began openly bragging how he’d conduct the Great Overmountain Invasion of Pakistan, qualms about sovereignty and destabilizing the already fragile state of Pakistan be damned.
To win a cheap and stupid political point, Obama threatend Pakistan and made its leadership look weak.
And now, partly because of his insane agitation against Musharraf, Pakistan’s truly on the brink (what McCain and Bush hoped to avoid), and Obama decides, “Hey, maybe I should lay off the provocations, huh?”
Obama’s fellow Democratic competitors said he came late to the party back when he talked about tough action against Pakistan, too. It looks like the now-president is once again arriving at a conclusion after everyone else. Kind of like on the issue of military commissions at Gitmo.
More: Allahpundit:
There’s an interesting contrast with the torture calculus here: Opponents of harsh interrogation refuse to balance the morality of inflicting suffering on one to possibly avoid the suffering of many, but in the case of drone strikes, the suffering of many seems to be the cold, hard, bottom line. If blasting terrorists and civilians in their vicinity from 20,000 feet makes America safer, let’s do it; if not blasting terrorists and civilians from 20,000 feet makes America safer by taking some heat off a wobbly, nuclear-armed government, then let’s do that. A strange game.
Blowing terrorists and civilians to smithereens = okay. Dunking a terrorist in water for 30 seconds = horrible violation of our morals.
by Stephan Tawney on Tue, May 5, 2009